Does Ron Paul think we should eliminate the FDA?

[TimB]

I'm sympathetic toward Ron Paul, but his stance on the FDA really worries me. It sounds like he wants to eliminate or at least vastly weaken drug testing. While he doesn't come right out and say that (that I can find), he does make a lot of anti-FDA statements that worry me.

I think people don't know exactly why the power of the FDA was expanded in 1961. A drug called Thalidomide was released in Europe for morning sickness, and the company that manufactured it wanted to bring it to the US. A lone FDA worker by the name of Frances Kelsey insisted on more testing ("more burdensome testing" many modern politicians would call it) before it could be released because she had concerns about the drug. The company put a lot of pressure on her to approved it, saying it had already been released in Europe, yadda, yadda.

Well, it turned out that the drug caused truly horrific birth defects (do a Google picture search for "thalidomide"). 10,000 kids in 46 countries were badly damaged (and innumerable more were just stillborn). The only thing that saved literally thousands of American children from this fate was Kelsey, who received the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service. It was total luck that she had had a specific background in biochemistry and pregnancy to know to stop the drug.

Presumably, Ron Paul, being a doctor, knows the story of Thalidomide. We have had the world of a weak FDA. Companies can and will push drugs out if less testing is required.

If Ron Paul believes the FDA should be less corrupt, or should be less influenced by drug companies, or whatever, then I can get on board. But it sounds like he wants to gut the FDA in the name of "The Federal Government shouldn't be doing that," and that is just crazy, based on history.

Does anyone have any specifics about Ron Paul's beliefs on this? I like a lot of what he says, but some things I just can't embrace.

[dannno]

To understand the position of liberty as related to health you must ask yourself a few questions and get the old cob webbed way of thinking out of your system.

What makes you think that there would be less drug testing if the FDA were abolished? Who is stopping people from testing drugs in the free market?

Who is forcing you to take new drugs on the market that you do not believe have been thoroughly tested?

If you think there is a govt. agency testing drugs thoroughly, are you more likely to take new drugs on the market without educating yourself first? Is this not at least partly shirking your own responsibility in the matter? What if the govt. was paid off to approve a new drug that was dangerous? Do you really trust government to thoroughly test drugs? How many people have died from approved drugs? How many people have died who could have been saved by drugs which took too long to be approved or were never approved? You can't just put up one example of where people were hurt and assume that overall they have benefited society, you have nothing to compare it to.

How many good healthful substances have not been approved by the FDA due to lack of funding for testing? Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars it requires to get a drug through all of the FDA hurdles?

Are you aware that since it is not profitable to put a natural substance that cannot be patented through FDA testing that therefore natural substances CAN AND WILL NEVER be approved for use by the FDA? What if many of these substances are more safe and more effective at treating a variety of conditions and ailments? Isn't this a major flaw in the system?

Finally, the FDA is controlled by big pharma (the drug industry) as well as big ag (Monsanto, etc.). They create these hurdles so that they become the monopoly players in the industry and profit the most, removing smaller competitors and natural substances which cannot be patented from having any widespread use. It is a racket.

[heavenlyboy34]

The FDA has caused more deaths and sickness than it's ever prevented. It's also unconstitutional. RP plans to slash the FDA budget, but not eliminate it (unfortunately).
hxxp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-pauls-economic-plan-eliminates-department-of-education-and-5-others/

"Paul would slash funding for the remaining departments, including a 40 percent cut for the Food and Drug Administration and a 30 percent budget reduction for the EPA. The Department of Defense would see $832 billion disappear from its budget during Paul’s first term in office, most of which would stem from Paul’s plan to end all foreign wars and foreign aid."

[heavenlyboy34]

To understand the position of liberty as related to health you must ask yourself a few questions and get the old cob webbed way of thinking out of your system.

What makes you think that there would be less drug testing if the FDA were abolished? Who is stopping people from testing drugs in the free market?

Who is forcing you to take new drugs on the market that you do not believe have been thoroughly tested?

If you think there is a govt. agency testing drugs thoroughly, are you more likely to take new drugs on the market without educating yourself first? Is this not at least partly shirking your own responsibility in the matter? What if the govt. was paid off to approve a new drug that was dangerous? Do you really trust government to thoroughly test drugs? How many people have died from approved drugs? How many people have died who could have been saved by drugs which took too long to be approved or were never approved? You can't just put up one example of where people were hurt and assume that overall they have benefited society, you have nothing to compare it to.

How many good healthful substances have not been approved by the FDA due to lack of funding for testing? Do you know how many tens of millions of dollars it requires to get a drug through all of the FDA hurdles?

Are you aware that since it is not profitable to put a natural substance that cannot be patented through FDA testing that therefore natural substances CAN AND WILL NEVER be approved for use by the FDA? What if many of these substances are more safe and more effective at treating a variety of conditions and ailments? Isn't this a major flaw in the system?

Finally, the FDA is controlled by big pharma (the drug industry) as well as big ag (Monsanto, etc.). They create these hurdles so that they become the monopoly players in the industry and profit the most, removing smaller competitors and natural substances which cannot be patented from having any widespread use. It is a racket.

Yeah, this ^^ too. There are a ridiculous amount of unsafe drugs on the market and extremely safe and efficacious ones off the market because of the FDA.

[dannno]

A good stepping stone to get away from the real problems the FDA creates would be to take away their ability to enforce while retaining their ability to provide information. This allows those who believe in the FDA to use them as a guide or information source for their food or health treatments while allowing others to use other treatments, foods or sources of information if they wish.

[erowe1]

So if I want to take Thalidomide, it shouldn't be my own decision?

[xFiFtyOnE]

The prescription drugs the FDA passes are causing a nation wide epidemic of legal drug addicts. My mother is one. I would rather her be a pothead or an alcoholic to ease her pain any day over her slowly killing herself with a lethal cocktail of chemicals the FDA claims are safe. And it looks like the problem is growing. I would be willing to bet everyone who reads this knows of atleast one person who is addicted to prescription drugs (whether prescribed to them or someone else...). At the very least I feel the FDA is ineffective. At most I feel it could be making the problem worse. What is the FDA's job? To make food and drugs safer. They are surely failing on the safe drugs end. Only two solutions to better our situation: MAJOR reform of FDA or End the FDA. A Paul adminstration would surely address this problem in a proper way, whatever he decides.

[gerryb]

Why is the FDA initiating SWAT team raids of small family owned farms and food businesses, such as walnut, almond, pomegranate, raw milk, artisan cheese, among a litany of hundreds of others?

If this movie has a showing in your area, check it out;
http://farmageddonmovie.com/

[erowe1]

The Independent Institute has put out some great stuff on the FDA. Here's a website they have on it:
http://www.fdareview.org/

[Tod]

A while back I heard some folks talking about how the FDA tests: they don't. They have the foxes do the testing and submit results. The proposal was that things to be tested should be submitted blindly to a university who would then have no stake in the results. Merk would pay into a general fund and and the disbursements from the fund would go to the university to cover cost of testing.

That was someone's theory about improving it; not a libertarian solution, though.